Statistics show that 86% of gun-related crimes involve handguns. An assault weapons ban or a waiting period would do little to prevent 86% of gun-related crime, and it’s quite possible that the person who would be prevented from buying a gun with a background check could easily find another legal or illegal way to buy a handgun. Yet even if these measures were put in place, it’s important to remember that an attack that’s very similar to the one in Orlando was carried out in Paris, France earlier this year. France has much more restrictive gun laws than the US, including many of the reforms that the US proposes in the wake of mass shootings. The attackers in Paris just illegally obtained weapons.

Looking at the numbers, we can see that the gun control measures on the table now would shave off 2% of gun violence here or another 4% there if they are to be effective at all. It’s worth noting that the US did have an assault weapons ban in place from 1994 to 2004. A University of Pennsylvania study found that the ban had a statistically negligible effect on gun violence. The things that we’re talking about doing today likely won’t prevent the next mass shooting and they won’t put gun violence in the US in line with other developed countries, so let’s start looking at other solutions. Let’s try ending the war on drugs.

The sale of drugs is a prime cause for gun violence because the illegal nature of the drug trade excludes it from all of the rules society has come up with to prevent violence in other areas. At its core, the government is a complex system of dispute resolution. We have laws, processes and courts that determine what is to happen when disputes arise. We’ve subscribed to that system and made it illegal for anyone but the government to use violence to enforce justice. This gives us better outcomes on the whole.

Because the drug trade is illegal, it is outside of the purview of that system of justice. Without an overarching dispute resolution system, participants must enforce their own justice. Because morality is so arbitrary in this system, everyone must be equipped to defend themselves and administer their own justice. To wit, 88% of inner-city juvenile offenders self-reported carrying a firearm and the most reported reason for doing so was self-defense. Competition in the drug trade requires gun ownership, much like the wild west before it was settled. Taking the drug trade into the jurisdiction of the peaceful systems of dispute resolution that we use all the time will quickly decrease its violent nature.

In Denver, since the legalization of cannabis, homicides have decreased by 25%. One in four people who would have otherwise died as a result of gun violence is now alive. This amounts to 10 people in one year in Denver alone. The nearby Aurora shooting took the lives of 12 people and likely wouldn’t have been prevented by any of the gun control measures that are currently being debated. Simply legalizing cannabis in one city has almost done as much to reduce violent crime as erasing one incredibly tragic mass shooting. Imagine how powerful and widespread the effects of mass drug legalization would be in cities like Baltimore and Chicago which see several hundred homicides each year.

In the wake of a mass shooting like the one in Orlando, we often overlook the daily gun violence of our urban centers. Shootings like Orlando are sensationalized by the media because of their abruptness and the seeming innocence of the victims. Yet the victims of everyday urban drug violence are equally innocent. Nobody deserves to be murdered regardless of moral standing, what drugs they use, or involvement in the drug trade.

In fact, the focus on the victims of the types of shootings upon which we fixate reveals an unfortunate moral disparity in the gun control dialogue today. Why are the victims of urban drug violence undeserving of the spotlight? Because they’re largely poor and black? The dialogue around gun control right now simply underscores the problems created by the drug war’s racist origins. Focusing on shootings like the one in Orlando whose victims are the types of people that gun violence rarely touches minimizes the impact of gun violence on the lives of people for whom violent crime is a daily worry.

Gun violence is a large, uniquely American problem requiring a complex set of solutions. Let’s focus our energy on one very high impact solution with the potential to actually halve gun violence in the US. Rather than ban a specific type of weapon, require background checks or close the gun show loophole, let’s make some serious change. Let’s end the war on drugs.

Standard

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Want to get rid of half of gun violence?”

Meagansays:

Awesome points across the board. Here are my questions:
1. 86% of gun related crimes are caused by handguns, but what percent of deaths? Would Orlando be one crime? Or 50 crimes? I think the idea behind banning assault rifles is to get rid of a weapon that can take out so many people in one go.
2. I think you are 100% right that ending the war on drugs will have an impact on overall gun-related deaths. However, do you think that it will impact mass shootings? I don’t think the Orlando shooting (or Sandy Hook or…) would have not happened had drugs been legal in their areas at the time of the shooting.

I really respect your stance on this and I think you’re right that it could have a huge impact. I think I’d still like to see an additional piece of legislation that makes it hard for bad people to get guns, but in our current political climate that will be really hard to do, if not impossible. Hopefully more decriminalizing of drugs takes place over the next few years and we can see if what is happening in Colorado happens in more racially and economically diverse states.